The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The effect of resource quantity and resource stoichiometry on microbial carbon-use-efficiency: Resource quantity/quality drives microbial C-use-efficiency
Open accessAbstract
The carbon-use-efficiency (CUE) of microorganisms is an important parameter in determining ecosystem-level carbon (C) cycling; however, little is known about how variance in resources affects microbial CUE. To elucidate how resource quantity and resource stoichiometry affect microbial CUE, we cultured four microorganisms - two fungi (Aspergillus nidulans and Trichoderma harzianum) and two bacteria (Pectobacterium carotovorum and Verrucomicrobium spinosum) - under 12 unique C, nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) ratios. Whereas the CUE of A. nidulans was strongly affected by C, bacterial CUE was more strongly affected by mineral nutrients (N and P). Specifically, CUE in P. carotovorum was positively correlated with P, while CUE of V. spinosum primarily depended on N. This resulted in a positive relationship between fungal CUE and resource C : nutrient stoichiometry and a negative relationship between bacterial CUE and resource C : nutrient stoichiometry. The difference in the direction of the relationship between CUE and C : nutrient for fungi vs. bacteria was consistent with differences in biomass stoichiometry and suggested that fungi have a higher C demand than bacteria. These results suggest that the links between biomass stoichiometry, resource demand and CUE may provide a mechanism for commonly observed temporal and spatial patterns in microbial community structure and function in natural habitats.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bergey's Manual of Determinative Bacteriology
S., F. A., Buchanan, R. E. T., Gibbons, N. E., & Bergey (1975) · Taxon · doi:10.2307/1218353 · Cited by 11,333
Ecological Stoichiometry: The Biology of Elements from Molecules to the Biosphere
Sterner, R. W., & Elser, J. J. (2002) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 4,476
Trichoderma species — opportunistic, avirulent plant symbionts
Harman, G. E., Howell, C. R., Viterbo, A., Chet, I., & Lorito, M. (2004) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nrmicro797 · Cited by 4,019
C:N:P stoichiometry in soil: is there a “Redfield ratio” for the microbial biomass?
Cleveland, C. C., & Liptzin, D. (2007) · Biogeochemistry · doi:10.1007/s10533-007-9132-0 · Cited by 2,365
Bergey's Manual of Determinative Bacteriology
(1923) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.13.12.1042-b · Cited by 2,347
Bacterial and fungal contributions to carbon sequestration in agroecosystems
Six, J., Frey, S. D., Thiet, R. K., & Batten, K. M. (2006) · Soil Science Society of America Journal · doi:10.2136/sssaj2004.0347 · Cited by 2,176
Nutritional constraints in terrestrial and freshwater food webs
Elser, J. J., Fagan, W. F., Denno, R. F., Dobberfuhl, D. R., Folarin, A., Huberty, A., Interlandi, S., Kilham, S. S., McCauley, E., Schulz, K. L., et al. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35046058 · Cited by 1,645
Schimel, J. (2003) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/s0038-0717(03)00015-4 · Cited by 1,552
Plant litter: decomposition, humus formation, carbon sequestration
(2014) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.51-6172 · Cited by 1,522
Principles and Applications of Soil Microbiology
(2021) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/c2018-0-05260-3 · Cited by 1,370
Cited by
Carbon use efficiency of microbial communities: stoichiometry, methodology and modelling
Sinsabaugh, R. L., Manzoni, S., Moorhead, D. L., & Richter, A. (2013) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/ele.12113 · Cited by 991
Self-citationNutrient limitation of soil microbial processes in tropical forests
Camenzind, T., Hättenschwiler, S., Treseder, K. K., Lehmann, A., & Rillig, M. C. (2018) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.1002/ecm.1279 · Cited by 454
Effect of warming and drought on grassland microbial communities
Sheik, C. S., Beasley, W. H., Elshahed, M. S., Zhou, X., Luo, Y., & Krumholz, L. R. (2011) · The ISME Journal · doi:10.1038/ismej.2011.32 · Cited by 421
Soares, M., & Rousk, J. (2019) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2019.01.010 · Cited by 411
Geyer, K. M., Kyker-Snowman, E., Grandy, A. S., & Frey, S. D. (2016) · Biogeochemistry · doi:10.1007/s10533-016-0191-y · Cited by 409
Metadata
- Authors
- Keiblinger, K. M., Hall, E. K., Wanek, W., Szukics, U., Hämmerle, I., Ellersdorfer, G., Böck, S., Strauss, J., Sterflinger, K., Richter, A., & Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S.
- Venue
- FEMS Microbiology Ecology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010-06-11
- Volume
- 73
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- no-no
- ISSN
- 0168-6496 (ISSN-L)
- 1574-6941
- OpenAlex
- W2124462221
- Cited by
- 349
- References
- 34
- FWCI
- 18.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The effect of resource quantity and resource stoichiometry on microbial carbon-use-efficiency: Resource quantity/quality drives microbial C-use-efficiency. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2010.00912.x
- The paper
- Keiblinger, K. M., Hall, E. K., Wanek, W., Szukics, U., Hämmerle, I., Ellersdorfer, G., Böck, S., Strauss, J., Sterflinger, K., Richter, A., & Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S. (2010). The effect of resource quantity and resource stoichiometry on microbial carbon-use-efficiency: Resource quantity/quality drives microbial C-use-efficiency. FEMS Microbiology Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2010.00912.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
